Intrinsic Value

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wesmorris, Dec 7, 2007.

  1. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Ok, so you say that the 'self' assumes it exists and not that the self is an assumption itself ?
    That seems logical, I thought you meant otherwise. However, isn't it more probable that the 'self' insists it exists ?

    Also, your view of the 'self' assuming it exists does not negate my view that the self is a construct of the brain. They can both be true at the same time

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    Yah otherwise nothing to do the assuming. There is apparently some repository for experience and a thinker i know as "self", focusing more virtual time into just one moment than the moment itself comprises.

    I told you... logically. Insist isn't a logical term, but effectively the same really, both the same affect.

    Oh but yes in terms of function I agree. Here's the way I see it: The mind's abstract component renders a simple survival function into ego. Ego is self, ego insists self, self insists self.

    Yah I didn't contradict you so there. Myeah, see.

    Yah I'm just trying to set up a logical framework type thingy. To me in this context, assumption = axiom = definition. For they are all effectively arbitrary choices about things chosen as "factual" such that we can deduce other facts (utilize the transform that is logic).
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2007
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    i say
    your kids look like their mom
    you got lucky, wes
    imagine if they took after you

    /shudders

    i wish i had kids
    i hear it changes ones life and gives it meaning
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    zactly. tanks godz.

    yeah. they're enchanting. love those little bastards.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    apple of my eyes and whatnot.

    i'm honored to be their daddy.
     
  8. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945


    Aaaa now we are in Sniffy territory....
    Sense of self? Brain/biochemical processes/arrived at by way of evolution (assisted by eye/language development?). I think some animals not only have 'self awareness' but also 'awareness of others', especially those like ourselves who are pack animals with an alloted place in the heirarchy.

    I feel it is a mistake to underestimate the role of 'others' in shaping the self. Parents/guardians/siblings, if their are any, all help to shape our sense of self. But surely the self is not a fixed thing as we can be different 'selfs' to different people as well as to ourselves (!).

    I am mindful of a recent news story of the father of a large family who suffered a severe brain trauma. He recovered physically but his family reported that he "wasn't himself". He had "turned" from a loving, caring and devoted family man into an aggressive, distant, loner. To the family there was little doubt the person they once knew had been replaced by a complete stranger even though he looked the same. And they were certainly in mourning. Clues here surely?

    Wrong tree? Engage please.
     
  9. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I agree.

    I agree.
    The self is constantly being 'reshaped', however the fact that is 'reshapes' means that, at the very least, it's potential was always there to begin with. This is because it is 'programmed' into our DNA to arise.
    I say 'potential' here because, obviously, it isn't there in the early fetal stages. I don't know if there is any data indicating when it supposedly arises (probably not).

    It is evidence that certain brain structures help to give rise to the 'self'. If one or more are damaged or destroyed it will change the 'self', the 'self' gets damaged.
    Brain structures initially arise through genetic expression but are sensitive to environmental influence. All we can realistically say is that the potential of the 'self' is predetermined in the genetic code and so in the brain. However, I would be surprised if the development of the 'self' could be fully suppressed by any environmental influence.

    Same wavelength ?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Ok, seems we agree on this stuff then

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    A pretty rudimentary representation thereof indeed, but that it is a representation of it really introduces some interesting things about "reality" IMO. Consider that "in physical reality" there is no real possiblity of "representation", as it necessarily implies some object to differentiate two objects from one another abstractly, necessarily bringing to a model of objective reality the very real abstract component. In "physical reality", there are no objects... as objects have been classified abstractly, implying directly a "space" in which such a phenomenon can occur. This in turn leads us to the inevitable conclusion that "self" (an abstract component), and all that self renders "real" in its processing of experience - is indeed part of reality, but "reality" consists of something that isn't generally accounted for by "physical reality".

    Genius or what? Lol. Okay yeah nevermind.

    Bah I'm not sure what I just said the effort cleaned my slate.

    edit: well upon rechecking it makes sense to me. *shrug*
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2007
  12. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    And the notion of the abstract itself to me becomes sort of an incarnation, rather perhaps a direct consequence of assuming self. lol. sometimes I think in titles and "consequences of self" sounded like a cool name for some document, now it looks stupid to me. Gah I hate that.
     
  13. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    i say
    why am i happy all of a sudden?
    i have not read exchange but.....
    what?
     
  14. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    I figured it was what. Hehe. Well I take it from the happiness that it was at least an entertaining what. Myah.
     
  15. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    ahh
    a bogus exchange

    citations please

    wes
    when you agree with this, do you not lay waste to years of postage?
     
  16. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Sadly, I can't find any

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Maybe Wes can be of assistance ?
     
  17. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    I responded to that stuff in a way that seemed consistent with my years of posting. Pehaps you can explain where I'm all laying waste to shit and shit. To me, post 128 pretty much brought together years of posting, or perhaps more concisely regurgitates it. Perhaps I've glossed. Expose.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2007
  18. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    EDIT: Gustav...

    I agree with this sans a single word "illusion", but allowed it for the purposes of leading to something more - as noted in post 128. I softly noted my objection in my original response.

    It would seem to me that indeed these processes are "real", yes.

    I don't see much theory in the above sans the single word "illusion". Basides that, doesn't seem theoretical (insides a model with a framework starting with self). The brain seems to need to exist for a self to exist. And it seems that brains have chemical processes.

    I might reject the term "construct", but while mildly distasteful to me, I don't see it as incorrect - merely a matter of flavor... as any "abstract" can be seen as a "construct" to me.

    And as I noted earlier, I don't necessarily agree with this, as I think they have awareness but could lack the abstract capacity for "self".
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2007
  19. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Hmm well I can't think of another word. But maybe you have a preferred term of your own ? I put it between quotes because I realize it isn't the perfect term in this matter.

    Uhm? I don't think we understand each other.. What is unclear to you ?

    I find the term abstract a bit vague in this discussion. However, it seems you know what you are talking about, so I'll adopt it if you say it is similar.
    What are the differences between the two terms as far as you are concerned ?

    Maybe better to let this one go. It has no bearing on the discussion and we aren't going to solve it either.
     
  20. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    Enmos:

    I just redid it for gustav. That was specifically to address his question. I didn't intend to rehash it. If you want to go back over it, fine... but if you wouldn't mind addressing 128 unless it's just too "out there".
     
  21. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    if materialistic explanation is adopted as an explanation for conciouness, do you not think a lot of discussions in phil would be rendered moot?
     
  22. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    a priori...a brain. something physical, something real, something objective
     
  23. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Oh uhm, I thought I responded to this already... oh well

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    What exactly do you mean with "physical reality" ? It sounds an awful lot like what I mean with objective reality. I will assume it so.
    1. Consider that "in physical reality" there is no real possiblity of "representation"
    > I agree.
    2. as it necessarily implies some object to differentiate two objects from one another abstractly
    > What objects are you talking about here ? Random ones ? Do you mean general perception ?
    3. necessarily bringing to a model of objective reality the very real abstract component.
    > This I don't get.

    I will try to 'translate' your words to how I understand them (please correct me):
    > 1. In objective reality there is no such thing as subjectivity,
    > 2. because to differentiate between two objects subjectivity is needed,
    > 3. meaning that subjectivity does after all has a place in objective reality.

    This, of course, isn't right lol

    1. In "physical reality", there are no objects... as objects have been classified abstractly
    - I agree.
    2. implying directly a "space" in which such a phenomenon can occur.
    - You will need to clarify that for me.
    3. This in turn leads us to the inevitable conclusion that "self" (an abstract component), and all that self renders "real" in its processing of experience - is indeed part of reality
    - I agree, provided that you mean that subjective reality is real but no part of objective reality.
    4. but "reality" consists of something that isn't generally accounted for by "physical reality".
    - I agree.

    I will try to 'translate' your words to how I understand them (please correct me):
    > 1. In objective reality there are no objects as defined by man,
    > 2. ?.
    > 3. This means that the 'self' (a subjective concept), and all it renders 'real' in its processing of experience is a subjective reality,
    > 4. subjective reality is not accounted for in objective reality.

    This is not what you meant.. surely.

    Wes I have tried, but in all honesty.. I don't get it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page